Monday, March 16, 2009

I am contacting you about the day-long symposium which Uncensored magazine has announced it will be holding on the 26th of April at the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall. Uncensored is selling tickets to the event for fifty dollars, and promising a range of speakers. Uncensored magazine is edited by Jonathan Eisen, who is one of New Zealand's leading conspiracy theorists. Eisen believes that events like the 9/11 attacks, the economic crisis and global warming are the work of a sinister and secret international cabal. Many of the contributors to Uncensored equate this cabal with the Jewish people.

The January-March issue of Uncensored offers examples of the magazine's anti-semitism. The cover of the issue shows Barack Obama with a star of David on his sleeve, suggesting he is a tool of Jews. An article inside called 'The Unspeakable Truth of 9/11' insists that the Israeli spy agency Mossad orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Centre, and another article called 'The Real Agenda behind the Monetary Crisis' calls the world's media 'Jewish-occupied' and claims that Jews control the American Federal Reserve. Yet another article claims that Monica Lewinsky was a Mossad agent, and calls her 'President Clinton's chunky Jewish girlfriend'. The new, April-June issue of Uncensored takes the anti-semitic theme even further - it includes an article alleging that the diary of famous Holocaust victim Anne Frank was a hoax.

Many of the contributors to Uncensored have strong connections with the neo-Nazi movement. The author of the article that attacks Lewinsky is Christopher Bollyn, who regularly writes for the Barnes Review, a publication which exists to deny the Holocaust and rehabilitate the Nazi regime. In the Review's July/August 2004 issue, for example, Alex S Perry jr argued that Adolf Hitler was a good man who should have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Uncensored also features the work of local bigots. The January-March issue, for instance, includes an article called 'Suppressed Ancient History of New Zealand' by Martin Doutre, a man who has become notorious for his claims that ancient Celts arrived in New Zealand thousands of years ago, before being conquered and eaten by the ancestors of the Maori in relatively recent times. Doutre believes that Maori lacked the intelligence to create the culture commonly associated with them, and insists that taonga like hei tiki and carved wharenui were actually created by white people. Doutre is an outspoken defender of the jailed Holocaust denier David Irving, and is a leading member of the One New Zealand Foundation, which opposes all forms of Maori culture.

The keynote speaker at the Uncensored symposium is Lloyd Pye, an American researcher who claims that human beings interbred with alien thousands of years ago. Pye's ideas have been promoted by many people on the extreme right, because they provide an excuse for disregarding the evidence that all humans come from the same ancestors in Africa.

In his advertisement for the Uncensored symposium, Jonathan Eisen encourages the public to visit the website Red Ice Creations to find out more about Lloyd Pye's ideas. Red Ice Creations is a large, slickly produced clearing house for conspiracy theories. It regularly features the work of Holocaust deniers and other bigots. On the third of this month, for instance, the site's owners posted and recommended a new video by the Adeliade Insitute, an Australian neo-Nazi organisation, called 'Judea Declares War on Germany'. In the video, Adelaide Institute leader Frederick Tobin argues that Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps never had gas chambers, and says that the Jews rather than Hitler were to blame for World War Two.

Martin Doutre will be giving a talk on his interpretation of Maori history at the upcoming Uncensored symposium. Jonathan Eisen will be chairing the conference, and the money from ticket sales will go to his magazine. Some of the speakers at the symposium plan to address less political subjects, like the New Age fad of naturopathy, and it is possible that they do not realise the nature of Uncensored magazine and the politics of people like Martin Doutre and Jonathan Eisen. I will be contacting these people to ask them to withdraw from the event.

I accept that Jonathan Eisen and other contributors to Uncensored have the right to free speech and assembly, but I don't think that they should be able to use the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall to promote their views and make money. The hall is a public asset that is supposed to commemorate the loss of New Zealand life in war, and to serve the needs of the community around it. I don't believe that our community needs Jew-baiting and Maori-bashing. I think it is particularly inappropriate that Uncensored plans to use the hall on an Anzac weekend, when New Zealanders will be remembering the thousands of their countrymen and women who died opposing the same Nazi ideology that so many of the contributors to Uncensored promote.

I hope that you will use your influence as a City Councillor for the Eden-Albert ward to prevent Uncensored from misusing the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall.

Thanks for the support folks. It's only been a few hours, but Casey has already responded to me and shared my concerns with other Councillors, and I've received several messages saying the matter is being taken seriously.

I'm going to have a crack at persuading some of the 'fellow travellers' scheduled to appear at the conference - anti-flouride campaigner and organic farmer Olive McRae, for example, who stood in Dunedin for the Democrats for Social Credit last election and possibly doesn't know what Eisen and co are up to in Auckland - to break ranks. It hardly helps their causes to appear at an event run by a magazine which is trying to persuade Kiwis that Anne Frank's diary was a Jewish hoax.

Whilst I'd rather it didn't take place as well, I think there are issues if there is, say, an actual protest outside the symposium, mainly that it might well focus media attention on the symposium rather than the reasons for protesting against it (such is the trouble of our modern soundbite age).

There's also the issue that a protest might well confirm the organiser's wet dreams whilst organised resistance inside the symposium would show that we are willing to engage in the issues (although you do get the problem that people like Doutré 'argue' by dropping a litany of claims which you don't have time to argue fully against). Of course, to have an organised resistance you need a well-rehearsed and prepared group to attend, which might be too much to organise.

Also, there will be a host of people in attendance who may well agree with one of the issues being debated (the fluoride conspiracy, for example) who, if presented with a good debate, may realise that the people they are in bed with are 'bad men.'

I think Map's first move (the letter) is a good one. His second move is also laudable. Still, if the conference goes ahead I think we need a Plan B.

There's also the issue that a protest might well confirm the organiser's wet dreams whilst organised resistance inside the symposium would show that we are willing to engage in the issues

I'm of the Deborah Lipstadt school of engaging the fuckers, and I think you and Maps have done a great job of it over the last few weeks. But I don't think you ought to engage them in a space that they are hosting, and paying for the privilege. I can't see a way in which they wouldn't be able to spin that into a victory (beginning with: our event was well attended.)

I think plan B ought to be a protest outside the venue. But I bet it won't get that far.

Speaking of Ms Lipstadt, I recently discovered she has a blog - well worth a gander:

I could not stand a day in the company of these fruitbats and fascists. But I would happily stand outside and wave whatever needs to be waved. I know the Illuminati hand signal as well, which can be useful when dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Maps - great! Great letter. What triggered me really into serious mode was when I saw they were associated with denying that Anne Frank 's diary was factual...that starts to get very serious for me. Denying the Holocaust is also - more abstract if you like - but still bad. Very bad.

They conflate theories of Maori inferiority (Maori who have suffered so much from the hugely prevalent white dominated culture which I am a part of) and Jews who have also suffered enormously - not only in the Holocaust; and crazy theories of Jewish world dominance.

Censorship doesn't apply to these bastards. They need to be suppressed. They are dangerous. Denying the Holocaust is illegal in Germany and Austria. It should also be here...

Good work Maps - I hope these guys are stopped - more Maori (and Jewish people - I see someone has sent a copy to the Jewish Council or mailing list - that is good) need to understand what these guys are on about.

The Prime Minister John Key is of Jewish parentage on his mother's side. He should be contacted. Helen Clark - despite her failings - is a humane person and compassionate as well as well read - she should be contacted and other political people. And the various news people. Others - people the in the larger community and Jewish groups.

I'm a personal Friend of Jon Eisen and I find it ironic that you think he's anti-semitic as he's JEWISH!He even put a special disclaimer in the newest issue of UNCENSORED in response to such ludicrous claims.

Now there is a difference between a Jew and a ZIONIST, a Jew is merely a descendant of the Semites and are generally nice people without extreme or savage opinions.

ZIONISTS on the other hand are the ones who think they are gods chosen people and should be the rulers of all mankind and kill everyone that stands in the way of their world domination. They view the rest of the human race as cockroaches that should be killed or enslaved.So Jon is not anti-Semitic, he's anti-Zionist, which translates as being pro human life, pro self determination, and pro free speech.

I'm also pro-free speech and I respect that you make the effort to put your views out, you have a right to your opinion and so do your readers.

Vinny or Infectious Films, the extreme racism inherent in your above comment is exactly the problem. Has someone fed you a copy of 'the elders of zion' and you actually, sort of, you know, believe it?

Zionism is in fact a Jewish nationalist movement started in the late 19th cent, it has nothing whatsoever to do with:

They view the rest of the human race as cockroaches that should be killed or enslaved.

This is purile. Equally as purile to say:

a Jew is merely a descendant of the Semites and are generally nice people without extreme or savage opinions.

somebody capable of such a dumb generalisation can only really be using it to set-up his following racist rant. This stupid Jewish conspiracy craip really needs to be knocked on the head, whether or not you label it zionist or jewish it stems from the same ignorance.

Can't you just spend a day in the library and read some actual books on Jewish history in Europe and alike? and the pogroms that have been driving them from Europe since the 1880's, who knows, you may even discover they're just people, you know, like you and me.

Jon Eisen, the editor of Uncensored, is Jewish. Does it make sense to you that a Jewish man would be an anti-semite? One has to wonder what your attack against freedom of speech is really all about. I understand that a Scott Hamilton who claimed the symposium was anti-semitic has tried to stop Olive McCrae from speaking, yet Olive will be talking about the Fluoride Deception.

All war memorials emit a stench and are wrought in Hell;This poet knows that man is now not charmed by love sonnets but panicked by smell,Always drenched in Death - never Life that could entice us to survive-We are so much better than we are made to breathe and imbibe:Always fear only fear - stink only of fear!Eternal damnation to those agents that sneer- And disallow Free Speech where an answer is so near-Sublime and merciful: "Love thy neighbour as thy self"All else is selfish, corrupt and made in Hell!Bring to the Hall yourself and a mate,Your good open mind and - oh Ladies a plate!

Brian John EvansThe Talkback Terrorist of New Zealandhttp://apoem.comevansbrianjohn@gmail.com

Claire, there are many things that don't make sense, Jewish neo-nazis is one of them, however quite recently in Israel 4 of them were arrested for some public disturbance (I can't remember what) but yes, such a thing as a Jewish neo-nazi does exist. It is evading the point though to argue that so-and-so can't be anti-semitic because a)he grew up around Jews b) he has Jewish friends or c) he is Jewish. The problem is the anti-semitic character and articles of Uncensored. Just read the issues, I have only seen the one with President Obama on the cover with a Star of David on his jacket, and it contains a truly surprising amount of anti-semitic vituperative in it. I don't care whether the editor is a Rabbi, the magazine is anti-semitic, and someone such as Olive who is running for council in Dunedin should know better than to get involved with such things.

American help to Palestine is in the thousands of dollars! Good? Not really.American help to Israel is in the many billions of dollars.American help to Al-Jazeera the media which brings you this- Palestinian civilians murdered by Israelli bombs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0voD8ZjMec&feature=related

President Bush was going to obliterate them - Al-Jazeera media, with phosphorous bombs.Tony Blair pulled out just in time.Wake up world.You are so lazy and easily brainwashed.Brian John EvansThe Talkback Terrorist of New ZealandHttp://apoem.comMalcolm Evans cartoonist sacked by a Zionist media, ie The NZ Herald sacked this genius:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d3eF0_MoyMAnd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EnXGyrVJQHow many protested outside the Herald for Malcolm?39 and some were jewish!http://evanscartoons.com

This is the press release Jonathan Eisen sent out in response to your attempt to get the City to renege on its contract with UNCENSORED magazine. I think it's worth reading. If UNCENSORED ran articles criticising Communism, or Nazism or Christian fundamentalism, that would be OK with you. But to run articles criticising Zionism ... well, that's beyond the pale? That makes him an "anti-semite" and a "neo-nazi"? Well, UNCENSORED has indeed run highly critical articles on all three, and some people were offended, at least before they started to consider that UNCENSORED might indeed be right about these things. I don't believe that UNCENSORED has many nice things to say about ANY religion for that matter. Does that make Mr Eisen ... what? A truth seeker or an equal opportunity heretic? Maybe he's a true SCEPTIC? After all he told Leighton Smith that Sceptics should be sceptical about everything, not just things outside of our comfort zone. We should question everything. Which is what UNCENSORED does so well.

Anyhow, here is the press release he sent out yesterday.

THE UNCENSORED SYMPOSIUM AND THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

As of 19 March we have been made aware that one ScottHamilton has complained to the City Council over the rentingof the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall to the publishers ofUNCENSORED magazine for their Symposium to be held on April26.

Mr Hamilton complained that UNCENSORED is"anti-semitic", having run several articlescritical of the State of Israel, as well as articles dealingwith Zionism and the history of Judaism.

Many of the articles were in fact written by Jews orextensively quoting Jewish scholars and politicians.

In fact Jonathan Eisen, the Editor of UNCENSORED is himselfJewish, a fact that perhaps complicates the complaint of MrHamilton.

Eisen contends that UNCENSORED is totally devoted tofreedom of enquiry and freedom of speech and that the pagesof UNCENSORED are open to people of all opinions andpersuasions.

In fact, he was roundly criticised by some Christians foran article he published on the Bible. He offered the pagesof UNCENSORED to their rebuttal and subsequently publishedit in the next issue.

The same offer was made to a Maori historian who complainedabout an article by Martin Doutre on the Treaty of Waitangi.

The very same offer is open to Mr Hamilton.

In fact, UNCENSORED regularly publishes the web siteaddresses for people of opposing opinions to the articles itruns, and has done so again in the current issue, aboutwhich Mr Hamilton has bitterly complained.

Bottom line: UNCENSORED does not support the idea of"holocaust denial" but we strongly oppose puttingpeople in jail for their opinions, something that ishappening regularly to people (many of whom are historiansand respected scholars) who question (often with respectablereferences) aspects of the Holocaust.

We believe that without the right to question establishedopinion the human race cannot improve and move forward.Shutting down opposing viewpoints smacks of repression andis reminiscent of the Inquisition and the jailing ofGalileo.

Mr Hamilton has asked the City Council to rescind itscontract with UNCENSORED to rent the hall on April 26. Weask the City to uphold not only its contract but to upholdits oath of office to obey the law, especially the Bill ofRights Section 14 which guarantees freedom of expression andinformation

Reading the Maps, James and Paul, examine the contents, not the bottle.Jon Eisen, a Jew himself, is not anti-semitic. The Mr Scott Hamilton who complained that Uncensored Magazine is "anti-semitic" did so because it ran several articles critical of the State of Israel, as well as articles dealing with Zionism and the history of Judaism. Many of the articles were written by Jews or extensively quoting Jewish scholars and politicians.I have known Jon Eisen for a few years now and know how strongly he feels about the notions of freedom of enquiry and freedom of speech, which is why he publishes Uncensored and why he is holding the symposium.If you read the magazine you will see it includes articles from people of all persuasions. Indeed, Christians complained about an piece he published about the Bible, so consequently he offered the pages to them to write a rebuttal - which they did and he subsequently published it in the following issue. Likewise, the same offer was made to a Maori historian who complained about an article by Martin Doutre on the Treaty of Waitangi.Jon Eisen has stated that the very same offer is open to Mr Scott Hamilton. Uncensored Magazine regularly publishes the website addresses for people of opposing opinions to the articles it runs, and has done so again in the current issue, about which Mr Hamilton has complained. As he stated in a post on the Uncensored.co.nz website a few days ago, Mr Eisen does not support the idea of "holocaust denial" but is strongly opposed to putting people in jail for their opinions, which is something that is happening regularly to people (many of whom are historians and respected scholars) who question (often with respectable references) aspects of the Holocaust. And in case you missed the post, it concluded: "We believe that without the right to question established opinion the human race cannot improve and move forward. Shutting down opposing viewpoints smacks of repression and is reminiscent of the Inquisition and the jailing of Galileo."

Look at at the whine, not the bottle. I don't buy the "himself a jew" trick. The notion that a Jew who criticises Israel has some special status is meaningful only to someone who thinks that Jews otherwise think alike and that the Jewish origins of an individual account for his opinion. In short, it appeals to racialists.

Claire, I doubt there is much point in continuing this discussion with a writer for Uncensored, however, on the off-chance you will take a moment to absorb the issue, the problem is not:

criticism of the Israeli state, and specifically to do with its treatment of the Palestinians, I imagine you'll find most people on the left support that viewpoint.

The problem is holocaust denial and Jewish conspiracy theories, summarised nicely by your fellow journalist at Uncensored who said:

ZIONISTS on the other hand are the ones who think they are gods chosen people and should be the rulers of all mankind and kill everyone that stands in the way of their world domination. They view the rest of the human race as cockroaches that should be killed or enslaved.

If you wish not to be accused on anti-semitism don't cry 'but I'm a Jew' - simply don't give credence to views that state the world is being controlled by a Jewish cabal, or that 'Jews started the war against Hitler' a comment I'm sure I read in your magazine (wish I had the copy beside me). Anyway, from what I have seen Uncensored is basically trying to be a glossy version of 'News of the World' maybe you should get more imaginative then and say WWII bomber found on the moon, or aliens ate my cat, and be done with it?

Scott Hamilton - I've never heard of you before. If you had ANY known track record as an effective 'social justice' activist, then presumably I would have.

Your style of work is despicable.You DISGUST me.

Your original letter to Councillor Cathy Casey stated:

"... the people organising it are anti-semites with close connections to the neo-Nazi movement."

No EVIDENCE is provided to back up this defamatory statement.

This is just scurrilous defamatory filth.

Jon Eisen is himself a New York Jew.

If Jon Eisen had close connections to the neo-Nazi movement - I for one, would be most unlikely to have any involvement with him.

I have known and worked with Jon Eisen for some years and have a huge respect for his active support for issues involving freedom of expression in particular.

Never saw you supporting the famous Ike Finau signs campaign back in 2002 Scott?

Never seen you at an Auckland City Council meeting Scott, supporting those of us who have taken our democratic right of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION to the point of arrest?

(In my case - 22 arrests - to date it being 19 -1 to me in Court).

I share Jon Eisen's passion for FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

We don't share the same views on everything - but our RIGHT to hold a different point of view is fundamental to our democracy.

Scott - to try to put (UNLAWFUL) political pressure on an elected representative to (UNLAWFULLY) cancel a contract for an Auckland City Council Hall, for an event where people can listen to views which they may or may not agree with is quite simply disgraceful.

Because Scott, you seem to be profoundly ignorant of the lawful democratic rights that citizens of NZ enjoy - please take the time to read them.

You may learn something.(Hopefully!)

Freedom to dissent is the difference between democracy and fascism. WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON SCOTT?

These above-mentioned human rights:

"Article 18 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."______________________

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference."

"New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Section 15 [Religion and Belief]

Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship,observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private."

"Article 19 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

_______________________

"New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 14. Freedom of expression

---Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek,receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."_____________________________________________________

"Article 20 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association."

______________________

"New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 16. Freedom of peaceful assembly---Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly."

"New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 17. Freedom of association---Everyone has the right to freedom of association."_________________________________________________

Wasn't that what WW2 was supposed to be all about?

Defence of such fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms?

I am absolutely DISGUSTED at your attempt Scott Hamilton to pervert our democratic right to listen to different points of view.

Having been invited to this 'Uncensored Symposium' I look forward to exercising my basic human rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association by my attending.

ORIGINAL LETTER FROM SCOTT HAMILTON TO AUCKLAND CITY COUNCILLOR CATHY CASEY:

"Dear Cathy,

I am contacting you about the day-long symposium which Uncensored magazine has announced it will be holding on the 26th of April at the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall. Uncensored is selling tickets to the event for fifty dollars, and promising a range of speakers.

Uncensored magazine is edited by Jonathan Eisen, who is one of New Zealand's leading conspiracy theorists. Eisen believes that events like the 9/11 attacks, the economic crisis and global warming are the work of a sinister and secret international cabal. Many of the contributors to Uncensored equate this cabal with the Jewish people.

The January-March issue of Uncensored offers examples of the magazine's anti-semitism. The cover of the issue shows Barack Obama with a star of David on his sleeve, suggesting he is a tool of Jews. An article inside called 'The Unspeakable Truth of 9/11' insists that the Israeli spy agency Mossad orchestrated the attacks on the World Trade Centre, and another article called 'The Real Agenda behind the Monetary Crisis' calls the world's media 'Jewish-occupied' and claims that Jews control the American Federal Reserve. Yet another article claims that Monica Lewinsky was a Mossad agent, and calls her 'President Clinton's chunky Jewish girlfriend'. The new, April-June issue of Uncensored takes the anti-semitic theme even further - it includes an article alleging that the diary of famous Holocaust victim Anne Frank was a hoax.

Many of the contributors to Uncensored have strong connections with the neo-Nazi movement. The author of the article that attacks Lewinsky is Christopher Bollyn, who regularly writes for the Barnes Review, a publication which exists to deny the Holocaust and rehabilitate the Nazi regime. In the Review's July/August 2004 issue, for example, Alex S Perry jr argued that Adolf Hitler was a good man who should have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Uncensored also features the work of local bigots. The January-March issue, for instance, includes an article called 'Suppressed Ancient History of New Zealand' by Martin Doutre, a man who has become notorious for his claims that ancient Celts arrived in New Zealand thousands of years ago, before being conquered and eaten by the ancestors of the Maori in relatively recent times. Doutre believes that Maori lacked the intelligence to create the culture commonly associated with them, and insists that taonga like hei tiki and carved wharenui were actually created by white people. Doutre is an outspoken defender of the jailed Holocaust denier David Irving, and is a leading member of the One New Zealand Foundation, which opposes all forms of Maori culture.

The keynote speaker at the Uncensored symposium is Lloyd Pye, an American researcher who claims that human beings interbred with alien thousands of years ago. Pye's ideas have been promoted by many people on the extreme right, because they provide an excuse for disregarding the evidence that all humans come from the same ancestors in Africa.

In his advertisement for the Uncensored symposium, Jonathan Eisen encourages the public to visit the website Red Ice Creations to find out more about Lloyd Pye's ideas. Red Ice Creations is a large, slickly produced clearing house for conspiracy theories. It regularly features the work of Holocaust deniers and other bigots. On the third of this month, for instance, the site's owners posted and recommended a new video by the Adeliade Insitute, an Australian neo-Nazi organisation, called 'Judea Declares War on Germany'. In the video, Adelaide Institute leader Frederick Tobin argues that Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps never had gas chambers, and says that the Jews rather than Hitler were to blame for World War Two.

Martin Doutre will be giving a talk on his interpretation of Maori history at the upcoming Uncensored symposium. Jonathan Eisen will be chairing the conference, and the money from ticket sales will go to his magazine. Some of the speakers at the symposium plan to address less political subjects, like the New Age fad of naturopathy, and it is possible that they do not realise the nature of Uncensored magazine and the politics of people like Martin Doutre and Jonathan Eisen. I will be contacting these people to ask them to withdraw from the event.

I accept that Jonathan Eisen and other contributors to Uncensored have the right to free speech and assembly, but I don't think that they should be able to use the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall to promote their views and make money. The hall is a public asset that is supposed to commemorate the loss of New Zealand life in war, and to serve the needs of the community around it. I don't believe that our community needs Jew-baiting and Maori-bashing. I think it is particularly inappropriate that Uncensored plans to use the hall on an Anzac weekend, when New Zealanders will be remembering the thousands of their countrymen and women who died opposing the same Nazi ideology that so many of the contributors to Uncensored promote.

I hope that you will use your influence as a City Councillor for the Eden-Albert ward to prevent Uncensored from misusing the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall."

I have spoken to Councillor Cathy Casey myself on this issue, and she sent me the response which she says that she sent to you on Wednesday 18 March 2009.

I note with interest that you appear not to have kept you word "I'll keep you posted."

(yeah right).

So - for the benefit of those reading your blog, (and yourself - in the unlikely event of your somehow failing to have received this reply from Councillor Cathy Casey) - here is her reply and the rsponse from Auckland City Council Officers:

(Email received on Friday 20 March 2009)

"Hi Penny

Here is the response I sent to Scott Hamilton on Wednesday 18 March.

If you have any further queries about the matter please contact Cameron Parr at Auckland City Council on09 379 2020.

I have today received a response from council officers who have taken legal advice regarding the booking of the Mt Albert War Memorial Hall by the Uncensored Symposium on 26 April.

That advice as as follows:

"There are several legal consequences of taking any action to cancel a booking:A potential complaint of discrimination on the basis of the political views or ethical belief under section 21 of The Human Rights Act 1993. The Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination by a body performing a public function conferred by law.

A court challenge to the decision to cancel the booking might be made on the basis that we have not complied with the decision making requirement as under the Local Government Act 2002.

After receiving legal advice it is clear that the potential legal consequences of refusing the booking is sufficient enough to deter from cancelling. One of the potential consequences is that the decisions can be determined to be inconsistent with the provisions relating to discrimination under the Human Rights Act. A civil case for damages might be filed. Discrimination is sometimes permitted specifically in legislation if reasonable, however it is not clear that a decision to cancel based on beliefs of this group would be justified discrimination."

I'm rather surprised to find that knowing Penny Bright is now the litmus test for being politically progressive. Is there some sort of ontological change - some transmogrification from reactionary to radical - that one undergoes, after bathing in Comrade Bright's aura?

I have actually met Penny a number of times over the years, and I'm saddened to see that she seems to have fallen in with the anti-semitic 9/11 Troofer conspiracy nuts around Uncensored.

I think that, rather making a personal attack on me, Penny should consider that there is a wide range of people - some but not all of them present in this comments thread - who are appalled by the anti-semitism and anti-Maori racism in recent issues of Uncensored, and opposed to the idea that the group around the magazine should be able to use a community space that commemorates the battle against fascsim to make money and promote its views.

There are half a dozen blogs which are condemning Uncensored's bigotry, including the popular feminist sites Capitalism Bad;Tree Prety and The Hand Mirror. A British Green Party blog has also blogged in support of our stand against anti-semitism. I've had e mails of support from people in the Jewish and Maori communities.

Together with a couple of other people who've been monitoring Uncensored, I'll be meeting the head of the Eden-Albert Community Board on Tuesday to dicuss the way forward. The indications I've received so far suggest that the Board is far from happy about the prospect of having Uncensored misuse its hall. Unfortunately, there are legal constraints on the ability of the community to reject racists and anti-semites who want to come into its midst to cause trouble.

I'm very happy, though, that Uncensored's Holocaust denial and racism are already getting so much coverage on the internet and in the media, and that outlets like Harvest Whole Foods are refusing to stock the magazine any more.

So how many of you actually read UNCENSORED so you can make an accurate critique of it without broad sweeping generalisations?

Can you quote me something from uncensored that's anti-semitic?

Remember to answer the question with a yes or a no, if you don't answer with either It means you're dodging the question and therefore are wrong. AND SCOTT, Nice one keeping your loyal bloggers up to date with your request being rejected! What did you think they wouldn't find out? Did you think it's a good idea to keep your people in the dark so that you can milk their support and prop you up? Were you afraid that they'd all get demoralised?

Freedom of speech is fine. But freedom of hate speech? Freedom of deliberate misinformation? I know maps has read Uncensored, as have I. He and others have already discussed its contents and the anti-semitic context of some of its articles. Perhaps you should read it yourself 'infectious films'. Leaving the above mentioned issues with anti-semitism for a moment, what of the views of contributors such as Doutre who's "astro-archaeological" inferences of pre-Maori Celtic populations also actively seeks to undermine and demonize scholarly scientific researchers such as archaeologists, portraying them as fascist liars not to be trusted by the public? Are we scholars supposed to just sit there and take these completely unsubstantiated claims along with the anti-Maori agenda inherent in such a thesis? Indeed, it is deliberate misinformation to the public for selfish agendas Doutre and other commentators are pushing in mediums such as the Uncensored. Again, freedom of speech is great and should be protected, but that does not mean that any and all ideas need or should go unchallenged, especially when they are generated from a mixture of intolerance and ignorance.

I know the answer to this one: in the current issue of Uncensored, there is an article which argues that contemporary Jews are not Semites at all, that they are not descended from the real Jews. This implies, of course, that they do not deserve to have Israel as a homeland.

And here's another. Mr Eisen believes that Rupert Murdoch is a Jew, that his mother was Jewish and he was raised as a Jew. In the normal world of normal people, this would be inconsequential, if it were true (it is not). But in the Eisenworld, it is futher confirmation of a vast conspiracy: Murdoch is Jewish, he runs the Media, the Jews control everything.

Infectious, perhaps you need to learn how to read what people actually write rather than see only what you want to. I explicitly said that Maps as well as myself have read Uncensored. This is what you asked. It equates to a 'yes' in your polemics. Your idiotic rhetoric is baffling, setting up statements like "...yes or a no, if you don't answer with either It means you're dodging the question and therefore are wrong".

Wow, what intellectual insight you possess. And I haven't "proved your point", I gave you an answer. If you want quotes than read the original post and the subsequent replies. Paul has also supplied reference. And in case you haven't guessed, yes, I am insulting you. I'm inclined to insult anyone who attempts to set up such pathetic polemic traps in any argument, and then attempts to pass condescending judgments on those who object. You produce an air of superficial intellectual prowess which is undermined by the fact you don't actually know how to construct an argument. Well done.

I don't know how to construct an argument? Thats probably true, because I believe that if you're still insecure enough to start insulting people whilst claiming your argument as solid and grounded, on hypocrisy maybe.

this is directed to the misinformed cog who initiated this thread, and his lap dogs...there's only one thing as bad as a racist...and that's some dimwit slandering another as a racist, when they are not. pretending to believe in freedom of speech, but only when it jibes with your consesus reality, is not freedom of speech. if one person is not free to speak, there is no freedom of speech. one thing i do hope comes out of this though is for jonathan eisen(who is jewish) and his mag(patronized by thousands who are anti-racist) to sue your sorry ass for slander and libel. I have read uncensored for some time and have not found it to be racist whatsoever, and i look for these things. it does challenge the status quo to think outside the box and not swallow everything you have learned or have been conditioned to think...to reassess what you think you know. and i'm guessing that is why you feel so threatened?first off though...jew, jewish, jewishness refers to a religion, not a race you punter. secondly, semites are described as a middle eastern heritage which trace their origins back to noah and his son shem. this includes middle eastern arabs as well as middle eastern hebrews...those who also trace their lineage back to abraham, a descendant of noah's. they're 'blood brothers', and not to be confused with ashkenazi jews(the majority of jews), who do not have these blood ties. so technically, the arab population are the largest semitic population. so does this make you and your lap dogs anti-semites for supporting the 'allegedly' racist philosophies of zionism? http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/you tell me 'smart' guy? what it looks like though... is that when others exhibit a view which invalidates your world, you cogs resort to slander, libel and ridicule to somehow negate what is being debated...all signs of a weak mind, when you can't argue a point(because you haven't researched what is being debated so that you can come to your own informed conclusions).also, had your head not been too far up your backside, you would have noticed that harvest also carries nexus magazine. a fine magazine which held equal placement alongside uncensored, which is also political and covers a realm of topics. lastly, naturopathy is not a 'new age fad', ya noob. its the oldest medicine on earth. its allopathy which is roughly only a hundred years old. alright, with that said...go back to your witch hunts, pontificating and trying to make the world in your image. see you at mt. albert hall!

Amazing how the dimwiwts who read Uncensored don't see that denying the Holocaust is anti-semitic, and can't follow the links to Rense and the Institute for Historical research and that they are...duh...run by self-described racists and neo-Nazis.

If you're not anti-semitic why publish article after article of utter lies denying the Holocaust, the most well-documented and terrible event of the 20th century? If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...these people are anti-semites.

'ashkenazi jews(the majority of jews), who do not have these blood ties'

Ah, yes, the bad Jews, the ones who control the media and international finance markets, according to Uncensored.

As Paul noted in his comment in this thread, Uncensored is spreading the lie that the Ashkenazi Jews come from central Asia, not the Middle East, and therefore have no claim of any sort to live in Israel.

This claim originates in Arthur Koestler's book The Thirteenth Tribe, and it has been investigated and discredited by scholars. We have definitive proof of the Middle Eatern origins of Ashkenezi Jews thanks to DNA tests, which show that both Ashknezi other Jews have a particular haplotype in common:

'Recent research indicates that a significant portion of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is also likely of Middle Eastern origin. A 2006 study by Behar et al[1], based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, or "founder lineages", that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Near East in the first and second centuries CE. According to the authors, "the observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population."

In addition, Behar et al have suggested that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from ~150 women, most of those were probably of Middle Eastern origin.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

It is completely irresponsible journalism to reprint and claims as true as true argument made decades ago and now completely discredited.

Then again, I suspect the nutters at Uncensored believe that DNA testing is some sort of conspiracy by the New World Order/Zionist cabal. If you can believe that Auscwhitz was a hospital, that Celts were the first New Zealanders, and that Jews demolished the twin towers, then you're probbaly impervious to reason.

stop using the term anti-'semitic' if you can't use it properly, ok? brush up on what a semite is, and then revisit your ignorant statements. then hit revise. i can see that you have not read uncensored, but are just another cog fanning the flames of a libel suit with your colorful adjectives. now please...put up or shut up. where is anyone calling themselves "self-described racists"? how is jonathan eisen, who is a jew, an anti-semite? i see, more slander from the misinformed peanut gallery. truth has nothing to fear, including incessant questioning. in the end, it will always be the last one standing. it is the right of everyone, to question anything they want, and have a forum to do it in. now i am not a holocaust 'denier', but i do realize that the numbers of jews killed in WWII have been revised a number of times before 'settling' on the '6 million'(1 or 6 million...it was still a tragedy). that alone though is enough to prompt one to question the final tally, right? anything wrong with that? after all, it is your right as a free individual to inquire as you please, hopefully getting closer to any truth. with that said, it is not your right to try and censor others. if i don't want to read something, i don't. but then i don't try and take that right away from others, got it automaton?!

maps,definitive proof like the weapons of mass destruction in iraq....yeah right! yours is a superficial slander of a complex subject. for future reference, wikipedia is not a reliable referencing tool. bad jews? cute summation, but nonetheless, damaging and slanderous. understand...jew, jewish, jewishness refers to a religion, not a race. ashkenazi does trace its orgins from central europe and the caucasus areas, not the middle east. see the khazars. i know...you read a book(or wikipedia)that definitively concluded(to you) that they came from the middle east(perhaps your version of uncensored?). oh wait, anyone who believes that is a racist, right? so just because hitler was a vegetarian, does that make all vegetarians racists and killers. nice try.and before you go on further about the reliability of dna sequencing, understand its pit falls before using it as an effective rebuttle. and please... before you profess to know what a lie is, and therefore a truth is, allow others to come to their own conclusions before relegating further discussion to the bin and censoring their thoughts and speech. your world is fixed, but thank god for most of us, it is dynamic and ever changing. i'll say it again, theres only one thing as bad as a racist, and that is one who slanders another for being one, when they are not. and poor try at discrediting the discussion through obscure and inconsequential comparisons. you choose to be a cog.

Does anon really believe that Ashkenazi Jews hail from the Khazar region of central Asia? If he wants to make that argument, then he has to disregard a mountain of research - research which is topped off nicely by the DNA data collected in recent years.

There have been two major studies of the DNA of Ashkenazi Jews - one in 2000 and one in 2006. Both traced Ashkenazi back to the Middle East. Check the links to academic papers at the bottom of the wiki page I linked to.

I raised DNA evidence in a debate with Martin Doutre, the Holocaust denier who thinks that whites settled NZ first and created all the taonga associated with Maori, and he replied by saying that the scientists who did the DNA tests that showed his thesis was wrong were part of a gigantic conspiracy. I suppose other contributors to Uncensored take the same attitude to DNA evidence.

The interesting question is why people like anon are so keen to differentiate the Ashkenazi from other Jews. Arthur Koestler, the author of the discredited book which argued that Ashkenazi hail from central Asia, was neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Zionist. He felt that Jews had the right to settle in the Holy Land simply because of their religious connection to it.

People like anon, though, seem to want to use Koestler's text to differentiate the Ashkenazi from other Jews, and claim that it is the Ashkenazi that are the 'bad' Jews - the ones who control the media, the monetary system, planned 9/11, and so on.

Another commenter here, Infectious Films, has contrasted 'good Jews' with 'Zionists', and suggested that it is only the latter who want to rule the world and crush the rest of humanity 'like cockroaches'.

What both anon and Infectious Films are doing is modifying classical anti-semitism slightly, so that rather than targetting all Jews with hate they target a smaller group of Jews.

There's a problem with this manoeuvre, though: most Jews are Ashkenazi, and the vast majority (though not all) of Jews are Zionists, in the sense that they believe the Jews should have a state of their own. So both anon and Infectious Films are still advocating the hatred of millions of people.

Zionism is the nationalism of a settler people. The problem with it is that ignores that rights of the people who were living in the settled land. Just as NZ nationalists tend to forget that NZ was established through the dispossession of Maori, so Zionists tend to forget that Israel was established through the dispossession of Palestinians.

It is nonsense to say that every Zionist is evil. There are left-wing Zionists - I've known a couple - and apolitical Zionists, as well as extreme right-wing Zionists. In the same way, we in NZ have some left-wing nationalists, like Chris Trotter, a great number of middle of the road, rather thoughtless nationalists, and as well as extreme right-wing nationalists like Kerry Bolton, Martin Doutre and groups like the One New Zealand Foundation and the National Front.

The left-wing position is to win over nationalists in settler states like NZ and Israel with the argument that there is an indigenous population which was displaced by settlement, and which has to be respected and given equal rights.

Large numbers of NZers have come in recent decades to see that Maori deserve reparation for their dispossession in the 19th century and equal status in NZ/Aotearoa. The best parts of the left in Israel are arguing with Zionists there that Palestinians must have equal rights and respect, rather than being treated as second-class citizens in a settler state. I suspect that a binational state, in which both Jews and Palestinians can live and have their identities affirmed, is the best solution to the oppression of the Palestinians.

I've argued all these points in public, on the mike at demonstrations against Israeli attacks on Palestine. What do you think about them, anon and Infectious Films? How do you think we should win Zionists away from the ideology of settler nationalism?

Btw, when I say 'we' at the bottom of my last comemnt, I don't mean to imply that I consider myself on the same political side as anon and Infectious Films. I consider that views like Holocaust denial, the claim that all Ashkenazi or Zionists are evil and bent on world somination, and the claim that Jews were behind 9/11 to have nothing to do with the left.

I just wanted to try to bring things back to the question of political action, because I notice that the folks who promote conspiracy theories have no proposals at all for political action to make the world a better place. They call those of us who have been active in causes like the anti-war movement 'cogs of the system' and so on, but their view that an all-powerful conspiracy controls history and vast numbers of people (Jews, Ashkenazi, Zionists) are inherently evil seem to me to make constructive political action impossible.

Anyway, over to anon and Infectious Films. The floor is yours, gentlemen. What is the best way to counter nationalism and promote equality in settler states like Israel and NZ?

first off maps,you read much more into a statement than is there and in most cases, lean towards the negative, not flinching about potentially and wrongly slandering anyone... i believe all people are inherently good. i also believe most people have good intentions, even when committing what i would call, bad acts. good, bad...its all fairly subjective anyway, depending on who you ask.secondly, its wise when bringing 'conspiracy theory' into a debate that you also mention 'conspiracy fact', and not just use it as yet another convenient tool to discredit someone. regardless, don't bring me down to your level and say that i hate anyone. i hate no one and do not advocate the hatred of anyone. not even you for being a pud on this blog. and definitely not the ashkenazi either. its just an observance, just like observing whether or not you are an atheist or a meat eater, or whatever.

with regards to this issue though, for thousands of years, the hebrew people and arabs have lived alongside each other in relative peace. this was before the creation of the political state known as israel and the displacement of palestinians from their homeland. as i see it, the issue isn't one of being jewish or christian or whatever. its about seeking the truth and following the information to wherever it takes you, even if it is into uncomfortable territory. zionism is one of those uncomfortable territories and i am glad a mag such as uncensored has the balls to write about. there is an element to zionism which is profoundly racist. no, i won't link to wikipedia, but to this article by Rabee' Sahyounhttp://www.albalagh.net/current_affairs/zionism_racism.shtmli would also suggest you objectively research the history of zionism, its modern implications and some of its major proponents, so as to try and understand what is currently taking place in israel. many believe that zionism is the impediment to real peace in that region. regardless, it is important to not be part of the problem. playing the old divide and rule game only works to weaken us as a species and in no way brings us together, which needs to happen. recognize that people have the right to ask questions even when you have stopped. we're all on the same ride to somewhere and there is no need to ostracize anyone from the game. and you definitely lose points for ridicule and slander. oh, and i can think of no better place for the uncensored event to take place than a war memorial honoring those who fought for our freedoms and liberties, the same freedom and liberties you hope to suppress for uncensored and those who are interested in seeing such an event.

Maps, I doubt they will have an answer. God forbid these people actually try and do anything constructive. No, that would lower them all to 'the mainstream' which is always in their eyes bad in comparison to the in-group mentality of 'alternate history or science'. Of course those of us who actually bother to learn in as close to objectivity as possible will weigh up the evidence. In academia (that institution of the so called ignorant and close minded) we are taught to constantly think critically about our sources, about the evidence and theories of our scholarly predecessors and about paradigms. Indeed, i'd like these 'anons' to tell me one single discipline where a paradigm shift has not occurred. The general gist of scientific philosophy can be summed up by the Socratic oath "to follow the evidence wherever it may lead". It seems to me, these Uncensored apologists all have one thing in common. An ingrained distrust of anything any scholar from any discipline has to say. That is of course unless they can warp it to suit their own agenda. I wonder though, why exactly they have come to think this way. I suspect many of the anons have had little to no contact with academia and the hypo-deductive methods employed with a critical eye. Sometimes scholars get things wrong in the light of new evidence. But new evidence is not ignored. Irresistibly, once enough contradictory evidence is collated, a paradigmatic shift is effected. In the same vien, if enough evidence was collated in support of some certain conspiracy claims, it would need to be incorporated into the academic consensus. The problem however with many of Uncensored's claims is that there isn't enough evidence to support them. They are supported only by a complex web of historically convergent hearsay, conjecture and rhetoric. Little else. Returning to the topic again however, I am in favor of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, even in the case of Uncensored. I know that Maps has posted pretty much the same thing in his blog on the Hubbards Food issue, so I think the calls for freedom of speech from many of the Uncensored apologists is a diversion from the real issue. No one is trying to suppress your rights, what we are doing is making public our complaints and challenges to the ideas you hold. Ironically enough you guys can't handle this and call it slander and suppression of freedom of speech. Well, I put it to you, if we can't challenge your ideas than doesn't that make you all hypocrites?! Are you trying to deny our right to freedom of speech in the form of objection? What of slander? Many of the speakers at the Uncensored symposium hold academics with disdain and label us liars. Shall we ignore this whilst you attempt to convert the public to this nonconstructive and polemic view? Perhaps you 'anons' and 'infectious films' are in dire need of a look in the mirror?

MOST OF THE ISRAELI PEACE MOVEMENT THAT MARCHED IN THE STREET OVER GAZA IS ZIONIST IN THE SENSE THAT IT WANTS A TWO STATE SOLUTION TO THE CONFLICT, WITH ONE STATE A JEWISH STATE. SO ARE THEY EVIL RACISTS WHO WANT TO RULE THE WORLD JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ZIONISTS?

New poster here. I'm confused. I've read a handful of issues of Uncensored and have never seen anything resembling racism or bigotry (i'd read the Herald if I were into that sort of thing). I find it to be a thoroughly enjoyable read. I don't take it all as gospel (for lack of a better word) by any means, but it certainly encourages critical thinking and questioning, both essential factors of both personal and species development one would think? Saw a great quote recently, "They must find it difficult those who take authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority". Authority will always have vested interest and want you to think in a particular manner. "I was told this, therefore it must be true" thinking is dangerous and is akin to thinking "This is how it is, therefore this is how it always must be". Dangerous...and self-defeating! Life's too short to be rigid, life is about adaptation! It keeps one young! I particularly like that Jon gives others the chance to voice their opinion concerning anything they are unhappy about in his magazine. That's brilliant, and what it's all about! None of this underhand telling tales, c'mon Maps! Surely open debate is better than censorship? I was told Santa Claus was true, and when I figured out that he wasn't, I wondered why i'd been lied to. I was lied to because that's just what the majority of people did in the primitive 1970's (and it still happens of course). Now, i'm quite happy about it, because I thought, screw you guys, from now on i'm going to do my own research about everything, and look at various sources of information, understand differing perspectives and look for those with vested interest. Then form my own opinion! You should try it, it's fun! Gradually patterns emerge, and wow is it liberating! It can be learned at any age with a bit of commitment to exercise, maybe some yoga, enjoying some music or nature, doing nice things for your family. Anyway, enough from me, Maps and co, be happy, read widely, give and enjoy life!

to edward the academic...your broad brushed stereotypes are cute but not very accurate, as your assumptions are that everyone who challenges the dominant paradigm is an uneducated inbred. i'd go head to head with you on who's had more schooling but then that would be the academic equivalent of a fist fight, wouldn't it? small minds reach for inane things when they can't properly debate a subject, eh. so stay on your soap box and gloating about your scholastic achievements. at the very least, its funny. now instead of dropping all this lingo which has very little substance, address what is being said and stop trying to polarize everyone into an 'us' and 'them'. you in fact sound very uneducated when you say that. to address your freedom of speech comment, you should have it just like everyone else does, or you are not free, we are not free. and yes, you do have the right to confront these people about their take on events. but a word to the wise, if you haven't researched what you are trying to debate, you end up looking stupid and desperate to validate your world view instead of trying to learn and expand your mind. fair enough if thats all you're trying to do. if you want to be mature about it though, you'll actually try and sit down with some of these people who have views contrary to yours and keep an open mind, while exchanging ideas and not try and shout them down with loaded comments. of course you can continue on with calling people up to try and coerce them not into renting the hall to uncensored. or call the press/council complaining that these people are saying things that are contrary to your belief system and could they please do something about it. makes me wonder just how old you really are, and i'm talking emotionally here.

"The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses"-Albert Einstein

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."-- Noam Chomsky

Anonymous, Well i'm glad you enjoy thinking outside the square. And I don't think everything in the Uncensored is harmful. Its also great to undertake your own research. But don't you think it's a little arrogant to assume that those of us academically trained are incapable of thinking critically? If you read my post above I address this very matter. Contrary to what you might think, we are taught to question our teachers. We are also taught about the mistakes past research has made, and thus what to avoid. This is something many authors of the articles in the magazine do not do. In science truth is authority, not the other way around as you suggest. Debates within a given field of expertise erupt all the time. It is how we learn and add to the sum of human knowledge. Many of the authors of Uncensored however pick and choose what resources they want to use and ignore everything else, even going on to continue using outdated methods which are proven wrong. At any rate, you are entitled to make up your own mind after looking at ALL of the evidence, I only suggest you do just that and research what us 'evil academics' have to say as well as alternative mediums. Good luck and thanks for replying in a constructive manner.

On the contrary, I don't think anyone who challenges a paradigm is an inbred and have never said so. I have raised a question as to education with regards to the fact that most of the 'them' or however you would like me to label those I am arguing against tend to view academics and anything published by academics in a very skewered and paranoid manner which seems to me to suggest they have not attended university for very long. I am sure however that this is not always the case.

Neither have I "gloated about my scholastic achievements", I am still learning and always will. I have merely defended academia against the prevailing paranoia exerted by many authors in the Uncensored. Am I not entitled to do this?

As for your advice about researching what I am objecting to, I am trained as an archaeologist with a focus on New Zealand prehistory so does this not suffice when tackling subjects such as Doutre's Celtic NZ thesis? If not what does seen as you would like to think you have all the answers? What are you trained in to make you an expert on any topic? Or must I bow to your rhetoric simply because i'm "part of the conspiracy"?

Lastly, I am interested in learning new things, and no doubt, if given the chance and the right atmosphere where everything I had to say wasn't completely ignored out of hand due to my academic training, perhaps I might learn something new and vis a versa. Unfortunately it doesn't seem conspiracy theorists work that way.

alright edward...you continue to gloat and continue to be condescending based on your prior scholastic achievements, and then make absurd judgements on people you do not know. while i think that you probably believe what you are saying, it is very unscientific of you and wrong. as much as i hate to give too much away in a forum as daft as this one, i'll tell you this so you can get off your high horse...i have two degrees and am working on my third at the moment. one of my degrees is in anthropology so i too have the background which you seem to think you have exclusivity too. i can say through experience though, that unfortunately, your type is typical in the field. you tow the company line and attack others who do not, unwilling to look at information which does not corroborate your belief system. i believe one of the reasons anthropology is stunted is from narrow mindedness such as this. science is about proving the hypothesis...any hypothesis. to do this, you must be able to look at any hypothesis objectively, regardless of what you believe. you seem to me to be more a follower of 'scientism', or someone who has made a religion out of mainstream science, never questioning the dominant paradigm and damning those who do. believe me edward, if people are ignoring you out of hand, it is not because of your 'academic training'...for your indulgement, some other scholars who are questioning the staus quo:http://www.physics911.net/http://www.ae911truth.org/http://911scholars.org/http://stj911.org/http://www.scientificexploration.org/http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/http://www.counterbalance.org/

"As civilization becomes more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which PUBLIC OPINION MAY BE REGIMENTED. With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio, (television) and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, and even instantaneously, across the whole of America. The conscious and intelligent manipulation of organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS THE TRUE RULING POWER IN OUR COUNTRY. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. What ever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by a relatively small number of persons, a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million, who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. IT IS THEY WHO PULL THE WIRES WHICH CONTROL THE PUBLIC MIND, and who harness old social forces and CONTRIVE NEW WAYS TO BIND AND GUIDE THE WORLD"

-Edward Bernays, in his book- Propaganda published 1928, former director of CBS

"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which as conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

Anonymous, well done, you got me. All this time I was looking at things like pa not realising they are actually pyramids. You are just so right, and what with your 3degrees I most certainly am put in my place. All knowledge is subjective, so nothing can be known and thus not tested. Therefore everything repeatedly accomplished in the sciences is all by chance. If I think otherwise this is just because I subscribe to the religion of scientism. If only I were as enlightened as you are oh mighty one who cannot even publish thier name or at least a psuedenom so as to follow the argument clearly. Funny thing is that while you prance around in your self-righteous importance dressed up as some pseudo defence of free speech, as soon as I or anyone else of 'the unthinking mainstream' criticises the alternative views we're labeled as self-inflated bigots, or to use your words "you continue to gloat and continue to be condescending based on your prior scholastic achievements, and then make absurd judgements on people you do not know". I am not gloating or condescending, I am arguing against some (note: some) of the absolute rubbish published in that excuse of a magazine. Have you ever stopped to considder that perhaps you are the one looking at things with a bias? Or do you actually believe the things Doutre for example publishes about 'astro archaeology'? What do you know of archaeological methodology pretell? Oh, but I suppose all methodology is part of the 'blinkers which make uncritical thinkers like me miss the 'truth''? I am sorry I have resorted to aggressive sarcasm in this reply but it has been a long fucking day and I am rather sick of you. Belive what you like if you will, aparently leprechauns, little green men, Jews as the 'root of all evil', missiles instead of planes hitting buildings, fake moon landings, and the 'non-holocaust' are the 'truth' which only you and your kindred delusions-of-grandeur, personality disordered mates can see. I looked up a couple of your links. Wow, quite amazing stuff. Really convincing. Especially the creationist Cremo, truely amazing and original work there. Occam's razor go flying out the window with that one? Obviously you take people who would rather use occam's GIB board as good examples of critical thinking. You're a hack, and so are your references. Good luck with all those "degrees".

In retrospect you appear to be the same 'anonymous' that I ran into on a prior post of maps' where you were debating evolutionary theory with me. Your devisive style and wording is at least very very similar. It resulted in the same ends. Polarised differences in epistemological considerations. Are you by any chance stalking me on this website? Perhaps you need a new hobby.

edward, you are a trip...first off, i'm not your fantasy anon from another post so sorry to disappoint. as far as a name you can call me, or narrowly define me by, i choose not to bother getting a google account...not for this anyway. alright, with that out of the way...i'm glad you've finally dismounted from your academic high horse. hey, whatever it takes. fyi, i don't have 3 degrees...i am working on my 3rd degree. listen up chump. people 'like you'(wink wink) give higher education a bad name when you choose to use your 'scholastic achievement' card, rather than critical thinking, good judgement, and an open mind as reasons to be heard. unfortunately, university is rife with your 'type'(those who think they can 'become smart' by simply attending), although more and more people seem to be opening up to a new paradigm and using their noggin's, 'thank god' for the rest of us. as with prior posts though, you keep painting everything with such a broad and baseless brush, and using obscure and inconsequential topic/word association so as to discredit what others are saying, much like: satanism, moon made of cheese, edward, leprechauns, etc. you get the point. weak minded word association used to defame. in this way, you are anything but scientific. typical when you can't or won't look at a subject objectively so you can further debate it. you know, the pursuit of truth. better to have that religious zealot knee jerk reaction, even if you are from 'academia', rather than understand the issues and be able to articulate yourself in a calm and concise manner. btw, cremo is not a 'creationist', in the way you are thinking or trying to debase his 'scholastic achievements', so you can just put that box away. had you actually read some of his work, you would know that. but better to keep informed via wikipedia, eh? yawn...truth is truth, knowledge is knowledge, so what. its your interpretation of these things which limit you. and just because you've found one truth, doesn't make it the 'gospel' truth, understand? think outside of your box man. perhaps you should look into quantum mechanics to broaden your horizons, rather than going on a witch hunt for people you disagree with? witch hunts are so old school anyways! live and let live man. the world will be a much more colorful place if you can just learn to do that, rather then wanting to paint everyone with your particular brand of beige. oh, instead of dropping the occam bomb, probably for the umpteenth time in your 'academic' existence, please...consider delving into quantum physics to some degree. rather than leaving you thinking you know everything about the universe, it'll leave you on the floor sucking your thumb. word.

Anonymous, First of all ok. You are not the same anonymous. It is just rather hard to keep up with who is saying what. Secondly, you keep going on about 'my scholastic card' being pulled out. Now I do not intend to come across like that, as I know better than anyone the limits of my own knowledge, that I don't know everything and that I am not the altimate authority on anything. I do however have expertise in New Zealand archaeology, so I feel I am in a suitable position to qualify challenges raised against the likes of the Celtic NZ thesis. This is not me 'pulling out my scholastic card', this is me laying out my feild of knowledge. Any one of the University proffessors would have a much more tactful appraoch than I. It is not my 'belief system' which makes me raise a challenge, it is my passion for scientific truth and public education. As for you claiming my 'word associations are not scientific' who ever said they were? I was not laying out a hypothesis. I do wonder, have you any training in a scientific feild? Earlier you commented that science was about "proving the hypothesis...any hypothesis". It seems you don't quite get deductive science. It isn't about proving a hypothesis, it is about trying to DISPROVE your hypothesis i.e. testing it. As for your "truth is truth, knowledge is knowledge, so what. its your interpretation of these things which limit you." you go into a position of extreme reletivism, a weak way of trying to tiptoe around the issue. Contrary to what you might think, some facts are objective.

Lastly, you state "oh, instead of dropping the occam bomb, probably for the umpteenth time in your 'academic' existence, please...consider delving into quantum physics to some degree. rather than leaving you thinking you know everything about the universe, it'll leave you on the floor sucking your thumb. word."Using Occams razor more than once in an argument does not negate its validity. You might wish it did, but it doesn't. As for your quantum physics, now who is trying to demonstrate thier intellectual prowess? Have you a degree in physics? I doubt it. I read an interesting and in this case rather astute and fitting quote recently: "those who think they understand quantum physics don't even know what it is". It is rather amusing when people like to list "quantum physics" as one of thier interests, and go on with some (no doubt cringeworthy to a quantum physicist) explaination of what it is. Unlike you apparently, this is an area in which I know the limits of my knowledge and expertise as in many cases it would take at least a bachelor degree for me to begin to get past the tip of the iceberg. I have however tried my best to keep up with the arguments (admittedly and somewhat unfortunately through mostly popular science books). And contrary to what you state about my 'static belief system' I am always delving into other perspectives to try and gain as balanced a view of the evidence as I can. One example is religion or the existance of God. I am, and have for as long as I can remember been a secular humanist and scientific rationalist. But I have repeatedly looked into arguments from other views. While most theological arguments are rather flawed in my view, some arguments to diesm or what I call the god of the philosophers I can at least take a (grudgingly agnostic) view upon. This is a bit of a tangent so I trust you will have indulged me. At any rate your assumptions are merely wrong and your suggestions somewhat arrogant (i.e "rather than leaving you thinking you know everything about the universe, it'll leave you on the floor sucking your thumb. word.", as again, I pressume you are in a position of ultimate understanding of the issue of quantum physics?). I am not on a witch hunt as you claim. Neither am I trying to impinge on anyone's right to freedom of speech. As I have clearly stated (and as you just keep on not getting) I am enforcing my right of freedom of objection. Why can I not. If absolutely everything anyone thought up without sufficient evidence to back it up is accepted as knowledge, well, no one would know much of anything now would we. Different "theories" of the combustion engine would result in quite a few cars with engines that wouldn't start. Different "theories" of human anatomy would result in quite a few fatalities on the operating table. Your extreme relativism might sound nice but in principal but just doesn't work in reality. You are correct when you say it is good to keep an open mind, but you can only have a mind so open before your brain falls out the side.

Just thought I'd add an ariel sharon quote, the former prime minister of israel.“I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him.”

This is the kind of Zionist I think is bad. Anyone who wants a state of israel, wants peace, wants religious freedom. They should be free to live their lives in peace and never be discriminated against bottom line.

Now my statement will obviously be viewed as anti semitic because I accurately quoted the leader of israel. SORRY!

MAPS"What is the best way to counter nationalism and promote equality in settler states like Israel and NZ?"

The best way to promote Equality is to strictly enforce the provisions of human rights.If you kill someone, you go to jail, if you are racist you have to be given sensitivity training, and preferably have the hateful approach to life taught out of you. (in saying that it has to be without doubt that anyone accused of racism is in fact a racist and not some crackpots idea of one)

To counter nationalism we all have to be wary at all times of it, monitor and keep it in check, and never be afraid to speak out against it, the problem we have is everyone seems to be too lazy to be active in their communities or debate or information gathering/discussion.

But primarily, it is extremely important to stop bickering among ourselves about issues of history and start getting active and out in the community and talking to our fellow citizens and advising them of their rights and at the very least let them know they are loved, their opinions matter, and they are powerful, more than one could ever know.

If human beings notice their similarities instead of their differences then the current melting pot of time consuming and energy draining ineffective debate will be over. Hopefully.

'it is extremely important to stop bickering among ourselves about issues of history'

Which is why we don't need magazines publishing articles saying that Auschwitz was a hospital, that the Holocaust is a Zionist plot, that Jews started World War Two, that Maori artefacts were made by white people, and similar nonsense that only serves to offend parts of the community.

Just thought I'd add an ariel sharon quote, the former prime minister of israel.“I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him.”

This is the kind of Zionist I think is bad. Anyone who wants a state of israel, wants peace, wants religious freedom. They should be free to live their lives in peace and never be discriminated against bottom line.

Now my statement will obviously be viewed as anti semitic because I accurately quoted the leader of israel. SORRY!

Hi there all. Have just read all the posts on this blog which i came across while trying to find out when 128 Abel Smith street is open for randoms like myself to pop in. (If anyone knows when this would be I still haven't been able to figure it out :-S). Anyways I felt compelled to post a short comment simply saying that while I personally disagree with the articles in question from Uncensored (having now read them - not alot of fun); my very basic understanding is that alot of people believe alot of very very wrong things, and it is their right to do so. If someone wishes to spend their time expressing these views then they should be allowed to do so, and if others wish to listen then that is their right also. As for holding these meetings in a War Memorial Hall; instead of trying to have these dear, obviously zealous, but severly confused (again in my opinion) people shut down - which is indeed a violation of the previously mentioned freedom of speech laws; why not suggest have the meeting moved to a more neutral location which isn't linked so precariously to some of the group's views. In my view holding such a meeting in this particular location is horribly insensitive, no matter what you choose believe about the holocaust.Don't get me wrong though - whatever the location, a symposium with this kind of content warrants protest and strong resistance - so long as we don't step over the line between offering people true, alternative information; and imposing our beliefs on others when they are unwilling and even hostile towards them. No matter how valid, true, and compelling one's views may be; if we do not present them in a selfless, thoughtful and understanding manner, few will give them a second thought. If the symposium was to be cancelled, this would no doubt be seen by Unsensored & related parties as validation of their theories - "If we aren't right about this why are the powers-that-be so keen to shut us up?!" etc etc. I've seen it many times. We owe it to ourselves to present our views in the best forum possible - not to win arguments or shoot other people down - but to help folks who are truly searching for something real along their way to finding it.That's my take anyways, open to critisism and insults and all the rest of course :-) Keep thinking y'all - freedom & equality.Peace.

"Adolf Hitler was a good man who should have received the Nobel Peace Prize."

This in the Barnes review does make that particular site look like neonatzi nutters.

However please do not condemn the whole 911 truth movement because it has attracted some people with other sinister agendas.

Should we all boycott the churches because they have harboured so many child abusers. Does that mean we should no longer permit anyone in the church to speak.

There are some creepy things happening in the USA. I.e. Can you tell me who owns the federal reserve. Its not the American people. This does not mean its owned by a Jewish Cabul. But secrecy that surrounds its operations is bound to fuel rumour of all types.Why was the uptick rule which was put in place in 1934 to protect the sharemarket from destabilistion removed by the US SEC in 2007. Someone is up to something. Who and what is unknown to me. We must not label an entire movement who have done enormous good in criticising Bush etc because of a few nutters in their midst.

Who does own the american media. Its corporations. And from Rupert Murdochs own lips is that in a couple of years only 3 corporations will dominate own the bulk of the worlds news organisations. His own words might be a reliable source do you think. Who is behind these corporations? The problem is we don't actually know.

There are definitly conspiracies a foot in our world today which will change it forever. We must try to sort through the information and find out just who are pulling the strings and what their agenda is.

“I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him.”

Thanks for this quote from Ariel Sharon. Are we now all going to ban Jews from speaking because of their previous leader Ariel Sharon's vicous Anti-Palestinion retoric. This says it all really. One side are being protected the other side can say what they like and we cannot question them. Lets not play favorites. Its all pretty vile.

"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which as conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

This is clearly commentary on the Soviet Union and world communism, not some New World Order conspiracy. You would think these folks could hold off on the out-of-context misrepresentation for a bit while they're trying to defend their public honour.